ArticleCureus2025
Oncological Outcomes of Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas: A Retrospective Study From a Tertiary Care Center.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CirculatingCancers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCCs) are a histologically heterogeneous and clinically underrepresented group of renal malignancies, distinct from clear cell RCC in morphology, molecular profile, and prognosis. Despite accounting for 20-30% of RCCs, nccRCC subtypes are infrequently studied, especially in the Indian population. This study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological features, immunohistochemical patterns, and oncological outcomes of primary nccRCCs in a tertiary care setting. Methods This was a retrospective, single-center study including 37 adult patients diagnosed with histologically confirmed nccRCC between January 2015 and December 2024. Subtypes analyzed included papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, collecting duct carcinoma, Xp11.2 translocation RCC, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC), unclassified RCC, and other rare variants. Demographic, clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemical (IHC) data were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), with comparisons between subtypes made using the log-rank test and Chi-square/Fisher's exact test. Results The cohort had a mean age of 54.3 ± 11.2 years and was predominantly male (67.6%). Papillary RCC (37.8%) and chromophobe RCC (21.6%) were the most common subtypes. Collecting duct carcinoma exhibited significantly higher rates of distant metastasis (80%, p = 0.014) and mortality (80%, p = 0.005), confirming its aggressive nature, as observed in prior studies. Median DFS and OS were 19 months (IQR: 12-36) and 31 months (IQR: 18-48), respectively. Five-year survival was highest for chromophobe RCC (87.5%) and lowest for collecting duct carcinoma (0%, p = 0.001). CK7 and CD117 were highly expressed in papillary and chromophobe RCCs, respectively, aiding subtype identification. The overall mortality rate was 37.8%. The small sample size and single-institution scope were key limitations. Conclusion This study demonstrates the prognostic variability among nccRCC subtypes, with papillary and chromophobe RCC showing relatively favorable outcomes, and collecting duct carcinoma associated with poor survival. Histological subtype remains the cornerstone of prognosis and therapeutic decision-making. Subtype-specific management strategies, early recognition through IHC, and incorporation of molecular profiling are essential to optimize outcomes. Larger, multicentric prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings and improve clinical guidance in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.